AJAY PAL SINGH Vs. DELHI HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE D.B.

(2.) NOTICE. Mr. Viraj R. Dattar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Latika Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 accept notice of Rule and waive the service. They further agree that short question of law is involved in this case for which no counter affidavit is required to be filed, as all the documents along with this writ petition are placed on record by the petitioner. Counsel for both the parties are prepared to argue the matter. With the consent of the parties, we have heard the matter finally today itself.

(3.) NO doubt, the petitioner was given opportunity to prove that his sons and daughter-in-law had taken loans from the said two banks and the petitioner failed to avail that opportunity. However, we are still of the opinion that when these documents were produced before the Appellate Authority and sufficient reasons were furnished by the petitioner because of which he could not produce the documents earlier, one further opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to prove his defence. We are making these observations also keeping in view the fact that the documents, which were produced before the Appellate Authority and are annexed with the present writ petition indicate that some loans have been taken by the daughter-in-law and sons of the petitioner from Canara Bank and Federal Bank Ltd. The statement of accounts from these banks have been filed. They match with the dates on which the loans were dispersed and property purchased. These being the bank documents, there is no possibility of tampering with the same or fabricate such record at a later date. After all, we are dealing with a case of an employee and even if it is to be treated that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in not producing the documents to prove his defence, such a hyper-technical view should not have been taken by not permitting the petitioner to prove his defence. If the petitioner is able to establish from the documents/records that the loans were taken by the sons and daughter-in-law of the petitioner, it may form complete defence to the charges leveled against him.